Can A "good" Muslim be a good American?

Would you like me to address you respectfully? Then you can do the same. Then you'll get my answer...and it's not off base.

PS the New Testament would pretty much nullify the origins of the United States wouldn't it?

 

I saw an announcement on another forum that Amity had been banned here. I'm really sorry to see that. I've met her a couple of times, but I don't know her well. But, I've always considered her to be one of the more thoughtful posters on this forum. I have seen several people banned from this forum. Considering the degree of vitriol that shows up too much in these threads, I'm a little surprised that anyone can get banned, or that there should be a lot more people banned. But, if Amity can get banned, then a line has been crossed. Therefore, I'm going to go away for a while, maybe indefinitely. I participate in other forums, and I don't need this. But, before I go, I should at least comment on this thread.

I have scanned this thread, but have not read everything on it. I am not going to comment on Islam, because I haven't done enough reading on the subject. I do think that a good Muslim can be a good American just as a good Christian can be a good American. I would remind everyone, that any religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.) can be, and has been, perverted to serve political, social, cultural, and other ends. As an example, I would cite one of the moderators who said that they would set aside their religion in order to defend their country. I think that raises questions about where their true loyalty lies.

Tim Reynolds

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by webdog
I see amity was banned. I hope it was because she was defending Islam, and anybody else that wants to defend a satanic, pagan religion suffers the same fate here.

This seems to go against the very fundamental concept of being an American. You are glad someone was banned because of what they said on a thread about "being a good American"? Americans have freedom of religion, no?

 

I do address you respectfully. To say your position is lame, weak, and a horrible excuse to justify the murdering or the crusades of innocent people is horrible. Where in the NT does Jesus advocate that? You have not addressed my question. We do not live under the law, or under the time when the nation of Israel was a theocracy. Neither do we live in an age when Israel was commanded to go and conquer a land that was rightly given to them by God. They were told to drive out the enemy from their land so that there would be no remnants of idolatry left in the land. We have no such command. The only command of warfare that Jesus gave is one of spiritual warfare, not carnal.

2 Corinthians 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

 

God works differently in the NT, than he did in the OT.
SJ made this statement:

"they need to remember that OUR God ordered the killing of many men, women and children too."

Where in the NT, did God (Christ) ever make that command? We are not conquering a land that was given us by God. God didn't command us to be mass killers as was inferred by Joe. That is absurd, and what happens when you take Scripture out of context. I can justify polygamy in the same way. I can make the Bible say anything I want to, including the statement "there is no God," (Psalm 14:1). Taking Scripture out of context does nothing to make your point. It only makes one look foolish.

 

To be honest, I didn't think you addressed me respectfully. I was referring more to your tone. But I will take your word for it.

Now, first of all you have to KNOW my position in order to call it weak or lame. I don't believe I made my position known. How do I know that? Because you go on to say what I completely agree with. You are right about Israel, the OT, etc. You are right about our warfare being spiritual. What I said in my first post was really nothing more than our God said to kill men, women and children as well. And He did. In the OT. I didn't say that He commands this to this day. I only said that He did.

 

See my post above. Where did I say the NT commanded any such thing? All I said was that God commanded mass killings. I didn't say when. It is hard to keep a straight face when you call me foolish, when it is you who went off on me foolishly without even bothering to think about what I really said. It's no big deal though. Just funny.

 

This latter post of mine was a response to Bound's post, not yours. I am not sure why the post did not quote Bound's name in the quotation.
However if God commanded mass killings in the OT, and you agree that it has nothing to do with the NT, or today's dispensation, why even mention it. It is a moot point and has nothing to do with this discussion. It is a red herring. Be relevant.

 

I know who it was a response to. I just added my two cents.

There are no if's about it. God commanded mass killings in the OT, you admitted it yourself. As for my mentioning it, it is completely relevant, it is not a moot point, and it is not a red herring. Something that has to do with the issue at hand is not a red herring.

 

If God commanded to Israel, a theocracy, to conquer the land that God gave to them, and thrust out the idolatrous nations from their land, what has that God to with us today? How is it relevant to the commands of Christ and the Apostles who told us to turn the other cheek,
who tell us that weapons of are warfare are not carnal but spiritual?

We don't live 3,400 years ago in the time of Joshua. The NT is our guide book today. How are you being relevant?

 

Ok I tried to just be nice but you insist on not getting it. Maybe you will now.

Originally Posted by webdog
I see amity was banned. I hope it was because she was defending Islam, and anybody else that wants to defend a satanic, pagan religion suffers the same fate here.

The above quote is why I commented. The point was that if Islam commands its' followers to kill and is thus a satanic, pagan religion for doing so then what does that make of the God of the Old Testament? HE commanded His followers to kill masses of people as well! Now...how is my point not relevant????:BangHead:

 

It is totally irrelevant, false and way off base.
The God of Islam is a terrorist and violent God. It commands its followers to kill "infidels" en masse today

Christianity knows no such God. Our God does not command us to kill anyone. Thou shalt not kill. We are in a spiritual warfare. You are taking something that happened three and half millenia ago and are trying to apply it for today. That is not "rightly dividing the word of truth."
It is as about as inane as saying because Moses fasted 40 days and 40 nights on Mt. Sinai, and saw God, and his glory, then I can do it too. Perhaps God will give me another revelation written with his own finger on tablets of stone also. Why not? What was good for Moses is good for me. What was good for Joshua is good for me. That is your reasoning.

 

Back to the original question: Can a good Muslim be a good American?
or as someone else put it: can a Muslim loyal to his religion be a good american.

The simple answer is no.

Regardless of the very, very few references to love in the Quran, the basic teaching of Islam is to convert the infidel or kill them. Since this is contrary to the American culture, then a good Muslim cannot be a good American.

That being said, there are many Muslims who have assimilated into our American culture. But they are Muslims in name only.

 

You are completely missing the point. Don't tell me what my reasoning is when you are that far off the mark. If you want to discuss this, then fine. If you are going to persist in calling me insane, etc. well, then, talk to yourself because I can't be bothered. Until you can stop missing the point and stop twisting my words, then I can't be bothered. I'm done.:BangHead:

 

Please tell me the point.
Islam is a religion of violence.
Christianity is a religion of peace, in which Christ is called the Prince of peace.
There is no peace outside of Christ.

 

I've told you the point. And now I'm ignoring you. And nowhere did I ever disagree with what you just said. However, you still have missed the point.